A Mongol-Isml Alliance?

: Thoughts on the Mongols and Assassins Author(s): Timothy May Source: Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Third Series, Vol. 14, No. 3 (Nov., 2004), pp. 231239 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25188472 . Accessed: 01/08/2013 10:48
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Cambridge University Press and Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Mongol-Ism?'?lt Alliance?:
Thoughts on theMongols and Assassins*

TIMOTHY the completion

called the Assassins, prince, cleansed to the Mongol the world

MAY of the strongholds of the Ism?'?l?s,

(1226?1283), the chronicler and

Upon
often waz?r

of H?leg?'s
in Northern wrote:

(d. 1265) destruction

Iran in 1256, Juvain?

So was without of

which

had been

polluted of paying

fear or dread King who

or the inconvenience uprooted the balm after into their of Moslem

by their evil. Wayfarers a toll and pray for the and and left no the cure

now

ply

to and fro fortune them. And

[continued] of of

the happy

foundations wounds

trace of any one to the disorders of on the mischief terms

in truth Let and

that act was

the Faith.

those who the confusion

shall come they kings

this age and era know the hearts times of men.

the extent Such as were

they wrought with [for

cast

of agreement trembling

them, whether their of wind lives] and

of former

or contemporary to them were

rulers, went

in fear and

[such as were]

hostile

day and night

in the straits of prison to overflowing;

for dread as a

their

scoundrelly

[sic] minions.

It was

a cup

that had been

filled

it seems

that had died.1

This state.

is the From

last paragraph it one might

of Juvain?'s form the

account that

of

the history the struggle

and

destruction the

of Ism?'?l?s

the had

Ism?'?l? been

opinion

against

long and spiteful for the Mongols

been existed the very for true. For the former, forty of on approximately at episode the Mongols' that the hands within

aswell
the other what

as the Muslims.
hand, while is primarily Although if one Assassins, of the

For the latter, this at times had

their relationship with is the a the Ism?'?l?s of that that years. on the remembered destruction act,

years,

Ism?'?l?s

the Mongols. relationship, the

it was includes

certainly the for usual

significant cited

particular sparked The

their

incident five attempt

ire towards triggered the

so-called

lasted

approximately

incident

annihilation

Ism?'?l?s was

a rumoured

life of M?ngke Yet, what was

Qayan their

(r. 1251-1259). relationship prior to this episode? Considering that the Mongols left

no opposition
century when

before them, it is surprising that the Ism?'?l?s lasted until the mid-thirteenth
the rest of Iran had come under Mongol control in the 1230s. What took

* of the University of Wisconsin and Ron Sela of Indiana University Iwould like to thank David O. Morgan like to thank those in the audience who for their comments on previous drafts of this article. In addition, Iwould commented or asked questions when I presented this paper at the Third Annual Conference of the Central Eurasian ofWisconsin-Madison, October Studies Society at the University 17-20, 2002. Any errors, of course, remain my own. 1 'Ata- Malik Juvain?, Genghis Khan: The History of theWorld-Conqueror, translated by J. A. Boyle (ist edition, Manchester, 1958) (later edition, Seattle, pp. 1997), p. 725 (henceforth 231-239 Printed ? Juvain?). The Royal in Asiatic the Society 2004 United Kingdom

JRAS, Series 3, 14, 3 (2004), DOI: 10.1017/S1356186304004080

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

232

Timothy May
between the initial Mongol incursions into Iran in the 1220s and the final campaign in

place

1255?56? Considering
how wrote few scholars have work, the classic

the enigma and legends that shroud the Ism?'?l?s, it ismost

conducted The Order formal of Assassins, research which on them. Marshall unparalleled. Hodgson, Bernard remains

surprising
of course, has Lewis

also delved into the study of the Ism?'?l?s in a thin but highly readable volume appropriately entitled The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam. Both works trace the history of the Ism?'?l?s and study their motives
although albeit scholar aspects papers with both some scholars thought studying Ism?'?l?s, But, but

throughout
do devote a

their history
section to Farhad only

including
the Mongol Daftary

the post-Mongol
period, is possibly several and other this the most volumes

period,

but

is only

cursory,

provoking the he

analysis.2 Not

productive on of various collected on

currently of on the them.

Ism?'?l?s.3 has also and

has he written conferences have explored

organised others

a volume avenues of

while

Daftary

research

the Ism?'?l?s, little has been examined specifically in terms of the Ism?'?l?-Mongol relations. for instance, has explored the Maml?k use of the Syrian branch of the Charles Melville,
Ism?'?l?s the this rule. in the Maml?ks' Indeed, struggles against and so the Il-Khans, work, Lewis's but there work, he ismore of the exception gap. than Perhaps nicely after Hodgson's was volume. of Ism?'?l?-Mongol powers for relations both parties prior during to 1250, that we time must period. also take into early Lewis's and remains though a curious less

is because

Hodgson Hodgson's the study with

thorough,

extensive,

compliments To account begin

relations

other

In the

1220s theMongols
before the and Ism?'?l?s after fought

invaded the Khw?razmian

the Mongol devastation of they the Khw?razmians,

Empire, which
that empire. maintained

antagonised
Lewis

the Ism?'?l?s,both
that with although the two

Bernard "friendly

notes

relations

in the main enemies of the Khorazmians [sic] The Caliph in theWest and theMongols East".4 Indeed, in 1228 an Ism?'?l? envoy, Badr al-D?n crossed the Am? Dary? and visited
the Mongol Ism?'?l?s' they court. friendly The relations that Khw?razmians with the Mongols a Mongol Empire Thus of an was one under as envoy.5 short-lived, conclude first to its rulers that the managed early period Empire to antagonise of Ism?'?l? and then Jal?l al-D?n (r. 1220?1231) an Ism?'?l? also caravan noted the they massacred because

suspected

it harboured

Although virtually Mongol later all of

the Khw?razmian their neighbours. consisted al-D?n 'Ajam?.

might against attempt evidence

relations against and Jal?l 'Iraq

alliance

the Khw?razmian re-establish

Khw?razmsh?h's There is certainly

Khw?razmian

dominance

in Iran

of

this.

During
During Isma

the firstMongol
this war, numerous they were

invasions of Khur?s?n,
refugees not streamed and to

the Ism?'?l?scontrolled parts of Quhist?n.

take shelter many under of the protection notable of the the more refugees

?l?s where

plundered,

in fact,

2 The Order ofAssassins (S'Gravenhage, Marshall Hodgson, 1955); Bernard Lewis, The Assassins: A Radical Sect in Islam (ist edition, London, 1967) (later edition, New York, 1987). 3 Farhad Daftary, The Assassin Legends: Myths of the IsmaHlis (London & New York, 1994); and his The Ism?'?l?s; Their History and Doctrines (Cambridge, 1990) and A Short History of the Ismailis: Traditions of aMuslim Community, Islamic Surveys (Edinburgh, 1998). 4 Lewis, The Assassins, p. 86. 5 Muhammad al-Nasaw?, Histoire al-Nasaw?, S?rat SultanJal?l al-D?n Mankubirt?, (Cairo, 1953), p. 265; Muhammad translated from Arabie by O. Houdas, du Sultan Djelal ed-din Mankobirti, (Paris, 1895), p. 262; Lewis, The Assassins, p. 86; Hodgson, The Order ofAssassins, p. 252.

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Mongol-Ism?'?l? Alliance?: Thoughts on the Mongols andAssassins

233

received gifts. Perhaps the most vitriolic of chroniclers of theMongol period, J?zj?n?, also took refuge inQuhist?n where he could only praise the Ism?'?l?s.6From this episode, certain
conclusions which gifts, that may be surmised. the The first is that, had if the refugees attacks, not raid headed and the that towards the Quhist?n, could even from provide suggests to in previous it should the be periods apparent of Quhist?n Ism?'?l?s launched forces immune did rulers Lewis It is very

that Mongol were

region.

Ism?'?l?s

from Mongol

attack.7

important

remember
of Quhist?n of for these

that during
invaded to flock enemies.

the era of the Seljuk and the Khw?razmian

Khur?s?n, the Ism?'?l?s al-D?n and other surrounding of a very regions.8 to Even around is indicative al-Tus?

Empires,
Thus,

the Ism?'?l?s
for refugees even Ism?'?l?

S?st?n,

regions

safe haven took refuge

in a storm, in the

traditional

Na??r

(1201-1274)

fortresses

of Quhist?n

619A.H./1222.9

In addition, Jal?l al-D?n Hasan

period, had already made

III (r. 1210-1221),

with the Mongols: This

the ruler of the Ism?'?l?sduring

this

arrangements

[Hasan

III] was

noticeably invaded the

loyal to the Caliph. (Sunn?) Khw?razm

is supposed allegedly a

to have

gone

so far that when of the even

the

(pagan) Mongols Sh?'?te) Caliph, invasion. to make Juwayn?, their

territory, sent doubts

at the invitation friendly admits embassy

(secretly the

Ism?'?l?s claimed unlike after Rash?d

that Hasan al-D?n,

them

before

who,

this claim,

that they were

the first

submission

the Mongols did claim

crossed

the river Oxus.10

Juvain?

wrote

that

the

Ism?'?l?s

to have

secretly

sent

couriers

to submit

to

Chingis

Khan
unsure

(1165/67-1227)
of the veracity evidence:

as he approached
of their claims,

the Khw?razmian
yet at the same

territory. Juvain? appeared to be

time acknowledged some almost

indisputable This was

alleged of

by

the Heretics

and

the

truth

is not

clear,

but

this much entered and present

is evident, the countries his duty,

that when of and Islam, accept

the armies the first allegiance The fact

the World-Conquering on this side of the Oxus

Emperor to send

Chingiz-Khan ambassadors,

ruler was

Jal?l-al-D?n.11 al-D?n Hasan III appeared that forty convinced. with the the Mongols years afterwards, Perhaps Ism?'?l?s too in the presence and the of Chingis had Khan some and offered his

that Jal?l provides writing were

submission Yet, Juvain?,

evidence almost still not

Ism?'?l?s

sort of relationship. such of as Lewis and his

and modern found an idea.

historians, the idea

Hodgson, employers,

Juvain? odious

the Mongols,

collaborating

6 Muhammadan Minh?j Sir?j J?zj?n?, Tabaq?t-i-N?sir? (A General History of the dynasties ofAsia), 2 Vols., translated from the Persian by Major H. G. Raverty, (New Delhi, 1970), p. 1197; Minh?j Sir?j J?zj?n?, Tabaq?t-i-N?sir?, Vol. 2 (Lahore, 1975), p. 313; Minh?j Sir?j J?zj?n?, Tabaq?t-i-Nasir?, 2 Vols., edited by 'Abd al-Hayy Hab?b? (Kabul, 1964-65), pp. 699-700. 7 Lewis, The Assassins, p. 90. 8 C. Edmund Bosworth, "The Isma'ilis of Quhist?n and the Maliks of N?mr?z or S?st?n", inMediaeval Isma'ili 1996), p. 224. History and Thought, edited by Farhad Daftary (Cambridge, 9 Hamid Dabashi, "The Philospher/Vizier Khw?ja Nas?r al-D?n al-T?s? and the Ism?'?l?s", inMediaeval Isma'ili as 1996), pp. 231-232. Al-T?s? later went to Alam?t, History and Thought, edited by Farhad Daftary (Cambridge, well. 10 The Order ofAssassins, p. 223. Hodgson, 11 but rather to Jal?l al-D?n Juvain?, p. 703. Jal?l al-D?n in this reference does not refer to the Khw?razmsh?h, Hasan, ruler of the Ism?'?l?s. 'At?Malik-i Juwayn?, The Ta'r?kh-i-Jah?n-gush?: Part III, edited by Mirza Muhammad (Leiden, 1937), p. 248. (henceforth Juwayni).

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

234
While semblance the Mongols of cohesion, effectively albeit ended under

Timothy May
the Khw?razmian a more territorially Empire, amorphous it still maintained shape under a the

leadership of Jal?l al-D?n. The

after the Mongol invasion.

Ism?'?l?sof Alam?t
observes that

attempted to take advantage of the disorder

"they seemed to have tried to make hay

Hodgson

perhaps in active alliance with

attacking Khw?razmian towns,

the Mongols
such as

and certainly not in hostility

and others, the Ism?'?l?s

to them".12 By
extended their

D?mgh?n

influence
1255),

further into Iran. The

after six years when

expansion
Jal?l al-D?n

of the Ism?'?l?s under Muhammad

Khw?razmsh?h returned from

III (1221
India, where

ended

he had taken shelter from theMongols

Perhaps some of the doubt concerning

in 1221.13
the submission stems from the later destruction of

the Ism?'?l? state.When M?ngke ascended the Mongol throne, he turned back an Ism?'?l? a commander in the Middle East, sent M?ngke embassy. In addition, Baiju, the Mongol
report stating that the Mongols' two most "obstinate enemies were the Caliph and the

Ismailis".14 Others
al-D?n, wearing informed that the went a chain mail

also urged M?ngke

s court shirt that Christians, surely 'Iraq take 'Ajam?, beneath the in order his

to crush the Ism?'?l?s.The

to procure as a aid precaution forts, and against the

qadi of Qazv?n,
Ism?'?l?s. an He Ism?'?l? was

Shams
He to

to M?ngke

appeared attack. contrary lost his power, armies and

robes, held

against their

the Khan

Ism?'?l?s and

several

religion

of Muslims, Ism?'?l?s would in Iran,

the Mongols. place. Upon and

Furthermore, this news, 'Iraq

if the Mongols M?ngke mandated

their

stationed

Khur?s?n,

to conquer

Quhist?n

and Alam?t

destroy the Ism?'?l?s.J?zj?n? wrote that this took ten years.15 If J?zj?n?'s assertion is to be believed, then perhaps the conflict between the Ism?'?l?s and the Mongols began prior to
M?ngke According 's reign. to Hodgson, by the time of M?ngke s ascension, two Mongol armies were

by Baiju. Although Baiju informed M?ngke of the dangers of the Caliph and the Ism?'?l?s,he was told to attack R?m, leading Hodgson
to wonder relationship if the at this Ism?'?l?s and Mongols despite still were having allies or maintained of aMongol a positive alliance, diplomatic also writes time. Hodgson, suspicions

stationed in Iran.One of them was commanded

that "the Ism?'?l?shad probably been bolder

Muslim sources hatred will have exacerbated or the Mongol by indicating an alliance submission

than most
the

in resisting the Mongol

Despite seems evidence unable

tide, and
from the to accept

resentment".16 Ism?'?l?s, Hodgson

this. If, as surmised by Hodgson,

Ism?'?l?s' attempts to expand their

had been working with the Ism?'?l?s

power after the destruction of

theMongols

during the
Empire,

the Khw?razmian

or had submitted to theMongols on the arrival of Chingis Khan, tide? been bolder in resisting theMongol

then how could they have

12 The Order ofAssassins, pp. 250-251. Hodgson, 13 The Order ofAssassins, p. 251. Al-Nasaw? (Cairo), p. 228; Nasaw? (Paris), pp. 219-220; Hodgson, 14 Lewis, The Assassins, p. 91. 15 2 (Lahore), p. 231. J?zj?n? (New Delhi), p. 1189; J?zj?n? (Kabul), p. 698; J?zj?n?, Vol. 16 does not state his source for the orders to attack Anatolia or The Order ofAssassins, p. 259. Hodgson Hodgson, that Baiju defeated the Salj?qs at Kose Dagh in 1243, it seems odd that he would be Baiju's statement. Considering s ordered to invade again as the Salj?qs submitted after their defeat. Perhaps Baiju sent his report prior toM?ngke For the most part, Hodgson consulted Nasaw?, Juvain?, and Rash?d al-D?n, and almost total reliance enthronement? on Juvain? and Rash?d al-D?n after the death of Jal?l al-D?n.

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Mongol-Ism?'?l? Alliance?: Thoughts on the Mongols andAssassins Hodgson

their own

235 theMongols for

believes
benefit,

that the Ism?'?l?s, although occasionally working with

had aspirations the Mongols surprising of world domination:

also

The

Ism?'?l?s almost matched ambitions; clear a minimum that it is not these

of their became with

that they

in the length of their reach, could not remain allies the world on a permanent introduced

and perhaps the breadth to the Mongols it when basis. Hasan the III had, taste

intended effort, world.17

to dominate and a maximum

of actual in the broader

of allies,

Ism?'?l?s to the

of expansion

Here

Hodgson

again

refers

to

the Mongols

and

the

Ism?'?l?s

as

allies,

but

he

contends

that the complete break with

ambassadors.18 The Mongols

the Mongols
had additional

came when M?ngke

reasons for wishing

turned away the Ism?'?l?

to end any cordial relations

with

the Ism?'?l?s. William

had entered the

of Rubruck
empire any in an

reported
attempt who to

that it was
assassinate arrived

thought
M?ngke.19

that four hundred

Due As to this, the to a response

Ism?'?l?s Mongols

carefully

investigated

foreigners

at Qaraqorum.

the alleged attempt, M?ngke

Hodgson's rather puzzling

ordered H?leg?
debate with himself

to "kill them all".20 Thus we

over whether or not they were

are left with

allies, and

also J?zj?n? s perplexing

years. and If J?zj?n?'s Ism?'?l?s took comment place

comment

that theMongol
then the is partially

efForts to destroy the Ism?'?l?s took ten

of relations however, between the the Mongols between correct, relations

is correct, in 1246. J?zj?n?

souring

the Ism?'?l?sand theMongols declined much earlier than 1246. After the death of Jal?l al-D?n Khw?razmsh?h in 1231, relations between
the Mongols my enemy deteriorated. is my friend" It appears and after that that they enemy both no applied longer the maxim existed, they of

the Ism?'?l?sand
"the enemy enemies. of

became

Hodgson suspects that, following Jal?l al-D?n death s, they "no doubt fell to quarrelling with theMongols who succeeded to his place".21 The Ism?'?l?s lost D?mgh?n in 1231, though it
is not clear if they resisted the Mongols. of forming Then in 1238 the Ism?'?l?s alliance of Syria against the sent an embassy to the West in the hopes a Christian-Muslim

Mongols.22

The Mongols certainly did not wait for the leisurely arrival of H?leg? before commencing in their attacks on the Ism?'?l?s.Ket-Bukha (d.1260) led forces in R?db?r and Quhist?n
1252.23 also His lieutenant to capture. to failed constant to hold suffered Ket-Bukha raiding. At defeat then times, the at Gird shifted K?h, his which attention general fortresses were Ket-Bukha to Quhist?n, successfully very also which besieged, but failed essentially a which city, is

amounted but then

the Mongol Ism?'?l?

captured imposing,

it.24 Overall,

not surprising considering

Khw?razmians.

their long history of holding

off the onslaughts of Salj?qs and

17 The Order ofAssassins, p. 255. Hodgson, 18 Ibid. 19 in (ed.), The Mongol Mission: Narratives and Letters of the Franciscan Missionaries Christopher Dawson Mongolia and China in the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Centuries, translated by a nun of Stanbrook Abbey (London, 1955), p. 184. 20 Ibid., p. 185. 21 The Order ofAssassins, p. 254. Hodgson, 22 Matthew Paris, English History, Vol. I, translated by J. A. Giles, (New York, 1968), p. 131. s vanguard commander. He later died at the hands of theMaml?ks Ket-Bukha was H?leg? after being defeated at the battle of'Ayn Jal?t in 1260. 24 The Order ofAssassins, p. 260. Hodgson,

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

236
Matters Khwursh?h Mongol changed with the approach the Ism?'?l? 'Ajam?

Timothy May
of H?leg? imam and at the head ruler to of an enormous wrote army. In 1256 the

(r. 1255-1256), commander in the

in this period, him that

to Yas?r25, to

'Iraq

region,

inform

he wanted

submit.

Yas?r consequently instructed Khwursh?h to go before H?leg? in Khur?s?n. Meanwhile, the process of negotiations did not detain theMongol attacks. Yas?r invaded R?db?r. Again,
this activity appeared to be more If the Mongols a question met of constant resistance, raiding they rather simply than went a sustained elsewhere attempt to ravage Ket-Bukha at conquest. the too much

countryside.26 also took advantage of Khwursh?h s negotiations in 1256. He overran most of

Quhist?n.
At

In typicalMongol
N?s?ir al-D?n,

fashion, he killed most of the population

the muhtashim of the region, came to

excluding
H?leg?

the artisans.
but

this juncture,

to submit,

explained
surrender continued

that he could not submit on behalf of the entire region. H?leg?

and rewarded out, him even with after the orders town of T?n.27 Meanwhile, instructed most of them to hold from Khwursh?h

accepted his
the to fortresses surrender.

Khwursh?h
was delayed, Despite

did agree to demolish

H?leg? their sent Mongol

several fortresses in R?db?r,

observers to ensure never went that his to

but when
was Instead

the demolition
carried he out. sent proxies.

decree

negotiations,

Khwursh?h

H?leg?.

Eventually H?leg?
destroy Yas?r all of his s army to cease

promised him complete protection

and come in person. in R?db?r As and its operations return

from retribution ifKhwursh?h would

faith, H?leg? When also ordered to

fortresses

an act of good 'Iraq

'Ajam?.28

Khwursh?h

did not fulfil his obligations, H?leg?

his hands Alam?t as well did as intensifying without his a surrender fight,

then began to execute

attacks on however Ism?'?l? the great

Ism?'?l?notables who
fortresses of Lammasar

fell into
and Gird

strongholds.29

K?h never did. Lammasar eventually fell in 1257 asH?leg? simply bypassed it after leaving a small force to lay siege to it. After the surrender of Khwursh?h and Alam?t, H?leg? had
most would did members remain use Khwursh?h Thanks There simply formal appear answer. to is no a ruse alliance? to have Juvain?, question to expedite The their of the leading families Before the very his executed execution of or sold while into slavery to to ensure Mongolia, hundred that the Ism?'?l?s leaderless.30 to obtain we have that en route one the Mongols fortresses. of the Ism?'?l?s. were there a

surrender detailed the Mongols Yet

approximately about

information decided are certain and hence they

the destruction them, that such as

once

to destroy questions scholars commit

negotiations remain. Hodgson to Was

the process. are rather ideas, even

there

sources own

vague though

and Lewis a precise

never

themselves

From the data at hand, although Juvain? appeared somewhat dubious about it, Jal?l al-D?n
Hasan diplomatic appears to have had submitted been to Chingis Next, Khan just before the Khw?razmian war, war. the Thus contact established. during the Khw?razmian citizenry

Yas?r was theMongol commander stationed in the region of Hamadh?n during in Transcaucasia while Yas?r controlled western Iran. 26 The Order ofAssassins, p. 266. Hodgson, 27 p. 232. Daftary, The Ism?'?l?s, pp. 423?4; Dabashi, "The Philopher/Vizier", 28 The Order ofAssassins, p. 266. Hodgson, 29 Ibid., p. 267. 30 Ibid., p. 269.

this period. Baiju was

stationed

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Mongol-Ism?'?l? Alliance?: Thoughts on the Mongols andAssassins 237 of the empire fled to Quhist?n
nor was that he the it conquered by in 1255. During or obtained possessions simply because

to take shelter. This region was not attacked by theMongols;

subsequently, (fl. as Ket-Bukha invasion all of Iran, continually of but made attacks in 1220-1240) Iran and Transcaucasia, neither Quhist?n nor

the Mongols Chormaqan's the around one

region conquered Ism?'?l? this

submission Alam?t

of virtually are mentioned.31 principal

Was

of Chormaqan's

activities

was

to hunt

down

Jal?l

al

D?n Khw?razmsh?h?
focused most of his

Perhaps, but then after Jal?l al-D?n Khw?razmsh?h's

activities towards the conquest of Transcaucasia.

death, Chormaqan
Additional evidence

pointing to the fact that theMongols did not conquer the Ism?'?l?regions isBaiju's statement that the Ism?'?l?s and the Abbasid Caliph remained the most obstinate foes of theMongols in the region. Yet, in 1243, Baiju defeated the Salj?qs of R?m
Ism?'?l?s. It was or enemies enemy while So what very was the status of the Ism?'?l?s in the empire unlike the Mongols their lines. armies to continue If nothing continued else, forth. to advance they used

rather than dealing with

at this time? the threat of

the

if there was to leave of the a

rebellion the that

behind

contingent seem to

to contain indicate

the main

None

sources

such a force existed in Iran for that purpose. Considering

for the Ism?'?l?s, He it is unlikely does mention that he would the activities not of have other noted of H?leg?. there much

the vehemence
such a force but not

that Juvain? held

prior to that the they arrival were

commanders,

earlier.

Also,
at the

in 1243, the Salj?q Sultanate of R?m,

time, was not an there expansive was no power reason So, and Thus have

though a relatively major

hence a threat Baiju's it appears to the Mongol

regional power
holdings should existed in into R?m peace

Transcaucasia. the Ism?'?l?s the did

to necessitate least

campaign that

posed and

a threat.

at the very

a formal

between When relatively

Ism?'?l?s the

the Mongols. end? Although ended an after exact 1243. date This cannot be ascertained, is based on one three can be

peace that

confident

the peace

conclusion

pieces

of evidence. The first is that Baiju did not feel threatened by the Ism?'?l?s in 1243, and so
he was able to invade he not front. of Anatolia. had an no more It must that force is no be remembered men, a two that when and more front war; forces Chormaqan likely indeed 30,000. Quhist?n For invaded such Iran a vast and Transcaucasia region, virtually with the this was a third addition 50,000 to risk

adequate

represented even against

There

indication and Armenian

that Baiju's contingents

increased that

substantially, him

the Georgian

accompanied

the Salj?qs.
The Baiju's Chaghatai lieutenants, event that triggered or one he even the conflict of was an assassination, from the Baiju qadi was not an attempt The on M?ngke, victim was comments, Qorchi, but the pleas assistance of Qazv?n. also one after

of Chormaqan's the promotion

lieutenants.32 to

of Chormaqan's the latter died

received

Chormaqan's

position

31 Chormaqan initially received his orders from Chingis Khan, but did not actually enter the region until 1230 to depose of Jal?l al-D?n s pr?dations. 32 Rash?d al-D?n, J?mi' al-tav?r?kh, edited by B. Kar?m?, Vol. 2. (Tehran, 1970), p. 56; Rash?d al-D?n, J?mi'u't Taw?r?kh: A History of the 1998), p. 42; Juway ni, Mongols, Part One, translated by W. M. Thackston, (Cambridge, p. 277; Juvain?, p. 724; M. Brosset, Histoire de la G?orgie: Depuis l'Antiquit? Jusqu'au XIXe Si?cle, (St. Petersburg, Central Asiatic Journal 8 (1963), p. 211, reprinted 1849), p. 530; J. A. Boyle, "Kirakos of Ganjak on the Mongols", in The Mongol World Empire (London, 1977). The exact date of his death is uncertain, but probably after the end of life in 1240 or 1241. Chormaqan's

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

238
in Jal?l and since The 1240/41. al-D?n Iran, they final The reason for the assassination

Timothy May
remains unclear, however with the removal of

Khw?razmsh?h, the Mongols remained piece tenure, of may the sole

the Salj?qs have decided

of R?m, that the

and Chormaqan's time was in the ripe

securing to move

of Transcaucasia against the Ism?'?l?s

independent is that attacked

power the the

region. could Since place not have occurred was Chormaqan's there in the during region time, he of and

evidence as he never if the

assassination Ism?'?l?s. had taken

Chormaqan's for would the approximately have had

Chormaqan during

ten years, the opportunity during his

assassination to attempt

retribution. of the sources.

Furthermore, Thus, sometime

is no mention 1241

assassination

tenure

in any

between

1251 (the ascension of M?ngke

and the Ism?'?l?s. time Both frame authors can be The Juvain?.

to the throne) relations broke down between

down G?y?k's further with evidence in 1246, he from drove Bar

theMongols
Hebraeus and of the

narrowed that at

noted

coronation

the

envoy

Ism?'?l?s away and insulted him.33 Furthermore, G?y?k army to deal with the Ism?'?l?s:
... while every to the West two men horse with he and a join

sent Eljigitei

to the region with

an

dispatched of him, every

Eljigitei ten

large

army. And

he

commanded

that

from

prince

out

should

Eljigetei, ten Taziks

that all the men should follow go along after.34

in that and

region

should mount should begin

that two out And

of every

that they

by attacking

the Heretics.

that he himself

should

Although
that that he his

Eljigetei
carried arrival there Eljigetei out

certainly did enter the Middle

any operations served against to arrival the Ism?'?l?s, replace and the region Chormaqan's reinforces with s command. remains seems iswhether convincing, One or not the Baiju thus

East, there appears to be no evidence

Indeed, other evidence of there had the indicates tanma army as the gave G?y?k commander an ally

Ism?'?l?s.

in the since

stationed Indeed, their over

against decided

Batu.35 to end to take

s presence relationship Qorchi that

argument and

that

the Mongols have

peaceful Chaghatai question the want on

that he may

actually

been

sent

The Again, both heavily One

the Mongols and their uses author

and even use

the

Ism?'?l?s though

had

an alliance? they rely

evidence to accept Juvain? who the

but Hodgson reason is perhaps also the

Lewis, of

it appears both

it, cannot. and Rash?d received abundance al-Ath?r

sources.

Naturally

al-D?n. less of

Hodgson was

al-Nasaw? of the

and J?zj?n? al-Kamil? and the

frequently. al-ta 'r?kh, Ibn amount

chronicler With

attention information

al-Ath?r. of

provided be easy

by Juvain? to miss

copious

information

in Ibn

swork,

it would

a few

comments

concerning

theMongols

and Ism?'?l?s.

the Hebrew Physician Bar Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abu'l-Faraj 1225-1286, the Son of Aaron, Commonly Known as Bar Hebraeus, Being the First Part ofHis Political History of theWorld (Amsterdam, 1976), p. 411; Juvain?, pp. 257?258; Juwayn?, pp. 212-213. 34 Juvain?, p. 256; Juwayn?, p. 212. Ibn Fadl Allah al-'Umar?, Kit?b Mas?lik al-abs?r wa mam?lik al-ams?r: Mam?lik Bayt Jinkiz Kh?n, edited and translated by K. Lech, Asiatische Forschungen, Vol. 14 (Wiesbaden, 1968), pp. 15-16. Of course, one must keep in mind that al-'Umar?, as a citizen of the Maml?k Sultanate, tended to view the Jochids of the Golden Horde much more favourably than the Toluids of the Il-Khanate.

33

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

A Mongol-Ism?'?l? Alliance?: Thoughts on the Mongols andAssassins 239

Like Chingis Khan, Chormaqan received a visitor from the Ism?'?l?s prior to crossing the

Am? Dary?. According

An official

to Ibn al-Ath?r:
was sent to the Tatars. He made known to them the weakness up on

of the Ism?'?l?Mulahidah with his defeat. And to him.36 is history. He

of Jal?l al-D?n,

[Jal?l al-D?n's] weakness. truly The if they proceed so to

to proceed to him, urged [the Mongols] to Ism?'?l? them [the victory official] guaranteed

and follow over

[Jal?l al-D?n]

rest,

speak,

From

there,

the Mongols

relentlessly

pursued

Jal?l

al-D?n

until he died at the hands of a few Kurdish peasants after he narrowly eluded capture by the Mongols. Should this passing of intelligence be considered simply an obligation of a
vassal even on to his entered suzerain? the Considering probably There not is no overlook but did that not. the Ism?'?l?s usually of not they only this. sent an official were the to Chormaqan to of before supply he territory, Also, vassals required passing inform troops

Mongol

campaigns. one Jal?l Although must al-D?n's Ibn

mention that also

Besides the an

the military Chormaqan

intelligence, concerning strength.

did

Ism?'?l?s

presence, al-Ath?r

provided details

approximation about the event,

of his military the stress laid

not write

in great

by the Ism?'?l?official on theMongols' need to proceed against Jal?l al-D?n seems indicative of the fact that the Ism?'?l?spossessed knowledge of where to find him. Thus, we have
the Ism?'?l?s not also be serving as spies. Considering their ability for disguise and infiltration, this should

surprising.

In light of this evidence,

possessed of or a vassal paid a relationship to the Mongols. to the camp that

itwould
extended The fact

be fair to conclude
into that an alliance, the Ism?'?l?s he

that theMongols
exceeded supplied much not the never

and the Ism?'?l?s

typical sent relations tribute, East,

which

troops, of

a visit less the

of Chormaqan is indicative

after that

conquered they were

the Middle to

much

court

of ?g?dei,

suborn

the Mongols.

Indeed, during the reigns of Chingis Khan and ?g?dei,

for operations Their relationship at this time presence with that against the Khw?razmsh?hs. coronation as they of G?y?k appeared demonstrates to recognise and to make at the

the Ism?'?l?sprovided
that G?y?k's amends the Ism?'?l?s authority.37 with did

intelligence
alter their

the Mongols they sought

It is perhaps upon

reconciliation

the Mongols

weighing
envoys

the consequences
demonstrates that

of Chaghatai Qorchi's
against a Mongol

death. G?y?k's
commander

dismissal of the Ism?'?l?

was not something taken

an offence

lightly.
Nevertheless, the fact that they did come to G?y?k's court at the time of his enthronement

does indicate a different relationship with

past. Thus, hand, To our knowledge, that they the were Ism?'?l?s not did it appears the passing does vassals

theMongols
not send a or otherwise and meeting level of intimacy. than

than the one that they had held in the

representative suborn with to ?g?dei s coronation. On the other this some or to the Mongols. generals did based on

of military suggest alliance

intelligence at least some

Mongol

to convey possess vassalage

information form

In sum, Mongols a relationship

of military

with

the

Ism?'?l?s

rather

submission. 36 Ibn al-Ath?r, al-Kamil? al-Ta'r?kh,Vo\. XII (Beirut, 1979), p. 495.The defeat to which of Jal?l al-D?n at the hands of 'Ala al-D?n Ka?qubaidh and the Ayy?bid al-'Ashraf. 37 Juvain?, p. 250; Juwayn?, p. 205.

Ibn al-Ath?r is the defeat

This content downloaded from 159.149.103.9 on Thu, 1 Aug 2013 10:48:39 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions